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!!
189 Reviews
Not bad for its type
SKG-21 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
mrarchiegoodwin16 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
murrydan9814 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.
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_Harrison19 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.
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)
Wuchakk11 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 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_robbins22 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.
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_shibby4 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 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
Bogmeister25 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.
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-139-26455519 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?
Nice effects, and Sizemore is good as always
Frogfisher6 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.
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...
ovidnine21 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.
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
Samiam311 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.
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.
Movie ok, book a LOT better
Dearra10 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-223 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
LoganPa9 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.
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-214 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.
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.
One of the worst adaptations the Universe has ever seen ...
A_Different_Drummer25 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.
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.
willywants10 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.
Good of its kind.
Hey_Sweden6 July 2014
Ultimately, "The Relic" all feels familiar enough to prevent it from being anything really special, but it's actually decently directed and produced and does get a fair amount of mileage out of its central location. The cast is above average, the music appropriate, the atmosphere respectable, and the effects - a combination of practical and digital - are generally well done. Those familiar with the source novel by Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child could understandably be disappointed, especially with the elimination of some of the best characters, such as Smithback the reporter and Prendergast the FBI agent. But "The Relic" does kill time easily enough, and should be adequately entertaining for creature feature junkies.
The description ""Alien" in a museum" is apt, as the story deals with an enormous, continuously evolving form of life that makes its home in the bowels of the Natural History Museum in Chicago. Of course, this is bad timing, as the museum is about to launch an all- important exhibit designed to pull in investors. The hero on the case is superstitious police detective Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore), who's assisted by sexy researcher Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller).
Sizemore is engaging in one of his earliest lead roles; Miller is likewise quite appealing. The supporting cast includes such familiar and reliable actors as Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton Rohner, Robert Lesser, Lewis Van Bergen, Constance Towers, Francis X. McCarthy, Audra Lindley, John Kapelos, Tico Wells, Gene Davis, John DiSanti, David Proval, Eddie Jemison, and Don Harvey. Director Peter Hyams shot the movie himself, but unfortunately he tends to under light scenes too much of the time. Action scenes are not always that coherent. But once the lights go out, things do start to get genuinely spooky and exciting. The monster design is courtesy of Stan Winston and studio, and they do their usual bang-up job.
Good fun overall.
Seven out of 10.
The description ""Alien" in a museum" is apt, as the story deals with an enormous, continuously evolving form of life that makes its home in the bowels of the Natural History Museum in Chicago. Of course, this is bad timing, as the museum is about to launch an all- important exhibit designed to pull in investors. The hero on the case is superstitious police detective Vincent D'Agosta (Tom Sizemore), who's assisted by sexy researcher Margo Green (Penelope Ann Miller).
Sizemore is engaging in one of his earliest lead roles; Miller is likewise quite appealing. The supporting cast includes such familiar and reliable actors as Linda Hunt, James Whitmore, Clayton Rohner, Robert Lesser, Lewis Van Bergen, Constance Towers, Francis X. McCarthy, Audra Lindley, John Kapelos, Tico Wells, Gene Davis, John DiSanti, David Proval, Eddie Jemison, and Don Harvey. Director Peter Hyams shot the movie himself, but unfortunately he tends to under light scenes too much of the time. Action scenes are not always that coherent. But once the lights go out, things do start to get genuinely spooky and exciting. The monster design is courtesy of Stan Winston and studio, and they do their usual bang-up job.
Good fun overall.
Seven out of 10.
Horrible
mayheth29 January 2018
I would give it a zero if I could. How can you make a movie based on a book without the main character. The book is an awesome read and this movie was just a waste of time. If you love the book this movie is nothing like it so do not even bother watching it. In fact no one should watch this garbage. The book is a 10/10
Enjoyable creature feature B-movie with the usual formula
bob the moo2 June 2003
When a shipment of artefacts returns to America from South America the police find decapitated bodies on board the ship. When a similar murder occurs in the Chicago museum Lt D'Agosta suspects a psychotic killer and shuts down the museum. With political pressures to keep the museum open for an `opening gala' for Chicago's rich and famous, D'Agosta is forced to give way but sets the place up with a police presence to deal with any trouble. Meanwhile scientist Margo Green suspects that an empty crate of mysterious leaves may have been more than just that and examines the potential that a virus on the leaves caused some sort of creature to evolve. When the same `evolution' attacks during the gala setting off the security alarms and locking down the museum it becomes a fight for survival and escape.
When this came out in the cinema I felt that that was not the best place to see a film like this and decided to wait for video or TV. I finally saw it on TV last night and feel that my gut feeling was right the small screen is the best place to see this film. At a cinema you may have higher expectations than you would if you watched it in the comfort of your own home on a lazy Saturday night and that might have hurt this film because honestly it's not that good a film. However as a video you perhaps have a lower expectation and then this film is a nice little surprise.
It is without it's own style or ideas but it is an effective monster movie which, in a nutshell, is really what it is. The film follows the traditional formula of all these types of things monster loose, location sealed or remote, characters separated and picked off in the order you expect until the hero gets the better of it. In that sense this is without any new ideas but and doesn't shine on the plot front but it is an effective little movie. Not particularly scary but more gore than I expected and the film manages to keep the beast frightening by keeping it in the shadows for the majority even after we've seen it, it is still shot in darkness. In fact the way the film is moved into darkness adds to the tension and makes it more exciting. Of course it isn't fantastic but it does do what you expect a monster movie to do, which is my point. It's main weakness is that it plays it very straight (although the mood made by the darkness helps this) many monster movies have successfully gone more tongue in cheek and done well (Deep Rising from the same period comes to mind. However, having gone the straight road the film does stick to it well despite a very unlikely explanation for the beast.
The cast are par for the course with this type of film no big stars but support cast given bigger roles. Sizemore is on good form and is at home in the lead of this type of film, I doubt he could carry a blockbuster but he is good. Miller has done better films and she is OK, sadly she is lumbered with all the science stuff and isn't as impacting until near the end. To contrast the two characters there was a 20 minute spell in the middle where both Sizemore and Miller are absent from the action (in different areas) I noticed Sizemore's absent but it wasn't until Miller came back that I noticed she was gone. The rest of the cast are the usual monster food and you can almost predict who will live and die without 30 seconds of them being introduced selfish arrogant scientist? How long do you think he'll last!?
Despite this and other clichés the film is good enough to watch as long as you know what you are getting it is certainly better than a lot of the creature feature movies you can get at your video store and the mood produced by the director in all that darkness helps it along nicely. Not great but better than average for the genre.
When this came out in the cinema I felt that that was not the best place to see a film like this and decided to wait for video or TV. I finally saw it on TV last night and feel that my gut feeling was right the small screen is the best place to see this film. At a cinema you may have higher expectations than you would if you watched it in the comfort of your own home on a lazy Saturday night and that might have hurt this film because honestly it's not that good a film. However as a video you perhaps have a lower expectation and then this film is a nice little surprise.
It is without it's own style or ideas but it is an effective monster movie which, in a nutshell, is really what it is. The film follows the traditional formula of all these types of things monster loose, location sealed or remote, characters separated and picked off in the order you expect until the hero gets the better of it. In that sense this is without any new ideas but and doesn't shine on the plot front but it is an effective little movie. Not particularly scary but more gore than I expected and the film manages to keep the beast frightening by keeping it in the shadows for the majority even after we've seen it, it is still shot in darkness. In fact the way the film is moved into darkness adds to the tension and makes it more exciting. Of course it isn't fantastic but it does do what you expect a monster movie to do, which is my point. It's main weakness is that it plays it very straight (although the mood made by the darkness helps this) many monster movies have successfully gone more tongue in cheek and done well (Deep Rising from the same period comes to mind. However, having gone the straight road the film does stick to it well despite a very unlikely explanation for the beast.
The cast are par for the course with this type of film no big stars but support cast given bigger roles. Sizemore is on good form and is at home in the lead of this type of film, I doubt he could carry a blockbuster but he is good. Miller has done better films and she is OK, sadly she is lumbered with all the science stuff and isn't as impacting until near the end. To contrast the two characters there was a 20 minute spell in the middle where both Sizemore and Miller are absent from the action (in different areas) I noticed Sizemore's absent but it wasn't until Miller came back that I noticed she was gone. The rest of the cast are the usual monster food and you can almost predict who will live and die without 30 seconds of them being introduced selfish arrogant scientist? How long do you think he'll last!?
Despite this and other clichés the film is good enough to watch as long as you know what you are getting it is certainly better than a lot of the creature feature movies you can get at your video store and the mood produced by the director in all that darkness helps it along nicely. Not great but better than average for the genre.
Not a classic- but definitely watchable
mr. vess4 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.
An awful creature on the loose in a museum
NewEnglandPat26 July 2005
This horror film has its moments and provides a fair number of shock scenes and creepy suspense situations. Tom Sizemore and Penelope Ann Miller star in this feature of a mutant monster that goes on a killing rampage in Chicago's Natural History Museum, then disappears in the shadows of the museum's underground chambers and tunnels, lying in wait as rescue parties search for a way out of the building to safety. The film is characterized by dim lighting in dark passageways, interiors and murky waterways, with only a flashlight used to guide the trapped patrons in their flight from terror. The plot uses the usual genre staples of sudden shock scenes and over-the-top gore to make its point. James Whitmore and Linda are especially good in supporting roles. Miller is a good heroine who winds up in a gripping chase scene with the monster in the picture's home stretch. The music score and low-key lighting add the film's dark, menacing atmosphere.
109 minutes of wandering in the dark .................
merklekranz29 August 2010
"The Relic" is bad, and even the presence of the usually reliable Tom Sizemore can't save it. It starts promisingly with an abandoned ship floating aimlessly in the harbor (think "Alien Contamination"). Inside are a slaughtered crew and so begins 109 minutes of wandering in the dark, and once in awhile something goes "boo". This movie is boring beyond belief, and so dark that you will be totally in the dark about anything on screen. If trying to figure out what is happening is considered entertainment, then "The Relic" is Oscar material. If on the other hand you would like to actually see what is being depicted, then avoid this blacked out disaster of a film. - MERK
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
