User Score
8.8

Universal acclaim- based on 33 Ratings

User score distribution:
  1. Positive: 29 out of 33
  2. Negative: 1 out of 33
Watch On

Review this movie

  1. Your Score
    0 out of 10
    Rate this:
    • 10
    • 9
    • 8
    • 7
    • 6
    • 5
    • 4
    • 3
    • 2
    • 1
    • 0
    • 0
  1. Submit
  2. Check Spelling
  1. GregE
    Feb 16, 2008
    6
    Yes, another monster-in-the-hallway horror movie. You saw it in 'Alien' and countless (fun) ripoffs thereof since, and here it is again, with whiz-bang CG effects, high-polish production values and Stan Winston creature design. While true that some who haven't read the book thought this movie was just "fine", those who know the book, myself included, are most assuredly Yes, another monster-in-the-hallway horror movie. You saw it in 'Alien' and countless (fun) ripoffs thereof since, and here it is again, with whiz-bang CG effects, high-polish production values and Stan Winston creature design. While true that some who haven't read the book thought this movie was just "fine", those who know the book, myself included, are most assuredly disappointed by the marginalization of the nastiness, adventure and suspense, in favour of simply "showing off" the monster effects. Peter Hyams may know how to make a fun thriller, but there is ZERO scare factor here -- something the novel had oodles of... too bad, because if this film had been scary (good) enough, there could have been a sequel, like the book had. Expand
  2. NickB.
    Mar 2, 2006
    8
    Not bad for another "large inherently nasty predator that eats scientists" movie. Not a perfect translation of the book....where is Penderghast, for example? But far better than I expected, and superior to recent efforts in the same genre such as "The Cave." The cinematography, clever lighting, and surprisingly robust score add to the experience of a movie that could have been very, very Not bad for another "large inherently nasty predator that eats scientists" movie. Not a perfect translation of the book....where is Penderghast, for example? But far better than I expected, and superior to recent efforts in the same genre such as "The Cave." The cinematography, clever lighting, and surprisingly robust score add to the experience of a movie that could have been very, very bad in different hands. Just forget it's based on the book and enjoy for its own merits. Expand
  3. RomsieM
    Mar 12, 2005
    10
    This great well done fun! Better than some of the big-budget big-name pap that we put up with from Hollywood every year. Peter Hyams' movies are always a great watch - "Narrow Margin" *ing Gene Hackman, "Outland" *ing Sean Connery, "The Star Chamber" *ing Michael Douglas, to name a few. "Relic" has quite a bit to recommend it - the chemistry between Tom Sizemore & Penelope Ann Miller This great well done fun! Better than some of the big-budget big-name pap that we put up with from Hollywood every year. Peter Hyams' movies are always a great watch - "Narrow Margin" *ing Gene Hackman, "Outland" *ing Sean Connery, "The Star Chamber" *ing Michael Douglas, to name a few. "Relic" has quite a bit to recommend it - the chemistry between Tom Sizemore & Penelope Ann Miller for one. Linda Hunt is pretty cool as well. Expand
  4. Dec 1, 2012
    4
    "The Relic" certainly had potential in concept, but in its overall execution, it is something of a failure. Most of the movie is very visually dark, leaving you only barely understanding what's going on, and the great creature effects are thus mostly hidden in shadow and given few opportunities to shine. The acting is okay, and in terms of suspense and attack scenes it's decent. But the"The Relic" certainly had potential in concept, but in its overall execution, it is something of a failure. Most of the movie is very visually dark, leaving you only barely understanding what's going on, and the great creature effects are thus mostly hidden in shadow and given few opportunities to shine. The acting is okay, and in terms of suspense and attack scenes it's decent. But the poor lighting really hurts the film, and the ultimate demise of the creature is cliched and exaggerated. This movie might have been better had it focused more on the transformative nature of the creature - as is, however, it's fairly missable with only moderate entertainment value. Expand
  5. Dec 9, 2014
    10
    I love it!! is my childhood!! the people need to understand between the book and the movie always is so different!! I love the soundtrack by John Debney and the cq efects in that time, come on we talk about 10 years ago!!
Metascore
55

Mixed or average reviews - based on 14 Critics

Critic score distribution:
  1. Positive: 5 out of 14
  2. Negative: 2 out of 14
  1. Much like the DNA-scrambled beast to which the title alludes, this film is a chimerical chop-shop product, consisting mostly of spare parts pulled from Alien, Jurassic Park, and even The Ghost and the Darkness.
  2. 70
    But Peter Hyams, who's both director and director of photography, forces us to constantly strain to see what isn't there, until ultimately the screen explodes in welcome light, a cathartic finale in broad visceral terms even if the drama hasn't inspired much emotion.
  3. 75
    All of this is actually a lot of fun, if you like special effects and gore.