Relic - L'evoluzione del terrore

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.

Not bad, not great. I loved the book, much more interesting and set in Manhattan's museum of natural history ( my favorite). I've watched the movie numerous times and found it enjoyable but, it just lacks the intrigue and detail that made the book so exciting.

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.

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.

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+