A relíquia

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.

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.

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.

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+

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.