People are voting emotionally.

Good concept, poorly executed.

The performances transcend the film's tropes, grounding it in characters that feel more complete than this subgenre often produces.

The film creates a perfect balance between action and depth of basic needs, in the midst of an infertile atmosphere.

Took an absolutely amazing, well written thriller novel, and turned it into a gory monster movie. The best characters were left out, key plot points were abandoned, and characters died when they couldn't have due to the following books. Even if I hadn't read the book I still would've hated this more than the horrid adaption of Timeline by Michael Crichton.

A researcher at Chicago's Natural History Museum returns from South America with crates containing his findings. When they arrive at the museum without the owner there appears to be very little inside. Police discover gruesome remains on the cargo ship that brought the crates, and then another murder in the museum itself. Investigating the murder is Lt. D'Agosta who enlists the help of Dr. Green at the museum. Unknown to both though, there is a large creature roaming the museum, which is preparing itself for a benefit reception......The relic hasn't aged very well since the last time I saw this back in 1998, and the script doesn't hold up either. The film is basically Night At The Museum for adults, and about as entertaining.It's by the numbers stuff, museum gets dark, people get picked off every now and again, the monster isn't seen until the very end, and only two teachers from Kindergarten Cop and Tom Sizemore can save the day.If this were made today, it'd be released straight to Blu Ray and vanish without a trace.The years have been really unkind to this film.Not as good as I remember.

One of my guilty pleasures is the collaborative efforts of Douglas Preston and Lincoln Child. I chanced up a copy of "Cabinet of Curiosities," a book in the middle of their combined canon. I wondered what else they had written, and so in the middle of my more serious reading, I went back and read all their books, including the one this film is based on. It is a bit of a ripoff of the 1931 Karloff "The Mummy." Things are brought back by museum curators for a huge exhibit at the Museum of Natural History. Of course, it unleashes a horror that brings death and destruction. There is a lot of the "jump out of the shadows" stuff, but the special effects aren't bad and it is pretty engaging. The two principle characters who appear in most of the books begin a bit of a relationship here. It has the pat technique of the arrogant, self-centered, selfish people victimized first. The museum provides a neat backdrop (it has all kinds of secret places, underground heating systems, doors that haven't been opened for a long time). It's a great place for a murderous beast to ply its trade. There are several literary sequels; however, this wasn't a big money-maker and I wonder if anyone will put up the money or commitment to try again.

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.