The Runestone is one of those early 90's efforts that relied on lighting effects to disguise the dreadful creature. It's a really messy feature that gets by barely on its decent cast.Telling the story of a man who makes a deal with a Runestone and becomes the Norse creature known as Fenrir which lore has it is a fierce wolf yet in this appears more yeti-like.William Hickey and Peter Riegert put on their usual excellent performances and the latter some much needed comic relief. Remember that long blonde haired head henchman from the original Die-hard film? Well he hams it up here as well and is almost as bad as the creature itself.Generally features of this type from this period I found entertaining but this is an absolute mess from start to the extremely poor finale.The Good: William Hickey Peter Riegert The Bad: Poor plot Fenrir looks pretty damn terrible Things I Learnt From This Movie: Modern art is not subjective it's stupid and pretentious Giant monsters can easily sneak into the backseat of your car while you're in it without you noticing

Just another monster on the loose feature, no surprises abound and routine as ever but remains entertaining for while it lasted. Never have I heard of it, until just recently. You could possibly see why. Far from memorable, but it's well made and its stark-like b-grade material (adapted off a novel) is quite polished. Fans of "The Relic" or even "Rawhead Rex" might get something out of it. Where I give it props is the origin of the mythological beast, Norse (Viking) folklore and the creation was something like a werewolf crossed ape design. Formidable in appearance, while it goes about tearing flesh, taking bites and for most part staying in the shadows. Even with this ancient prophecy background, some things felt a little unclear (like that of Alexander Godunov's mysterious stranger clockmaker character) if too black and white. The plot follows that of an archaeologist who uncovers an ancient Norse artifact; a power stone and returns to New York with it. However this stone possesses an evil which projects itself into the archaeologist, transforming him into a vicious beast that goes about terrorising the people of New York. Now it's up to an archaeologist and his artist wife to begin to investigate the threat and figure a way to stop it. It's as simple as that, but director / writer Willard Carroll's methodical handling is stylishly glassy and well-paced in its clichéd structure. Creating some moments of suspense, with grisly jolts and dark atmospheric encounters consisting of brooding lighting amongst its urban framework. The performances are strongly delivered with the likes of Peter Riegert (providing touches of humour) and Joan Severance standing out. You also have character actor William Hickey and the always hard-boiled Lawrence Tierney in small, but important parts."I'm sure there's a logical explanation to all of this"

Forgive me if I am wrong but there was something just plain missing from THE RUNESTONE, one of about three Viking Horror idiom films where ancient Viking curses lead to modern day havoc and mayhem. I was able to track down this one and a movie called THE BERSERKER, which won the contest easily by being a silly, sleazy, lurid backwoods hacker. This movie thinks it is HIGHLANDER material, and for the second time in a week I get to fault a horror movie from the late 80s/early 90s for not being sleazy enough. I am not sure when the era of "respectable" medium budget horror started (right after CREEPSHOW 2, maybe) but it resulted in a decades worth of uninteresting no-scares and no-offense meant horror efforts. The whole point of making a horror film is to give a young filmmaker the freedom to be as offensive as they see fit. Real talent doesn't come from disciplining yourself at first, it comes from letting it all hang out and RUNESTONE seemed to have a preoccupation with being respectable. The monster was cool though: At some point the film switches gears, transforming itself from a DA VINCI CODE-esquire thriller about ancient artifacts, manuscripts, talismans and glowering white haired Swedes into a busy, loud and amusingly obnoxious monster movie. Here we get to see Norse god of war Odin personified by a big rubber costumed goon with glowing eyes, cloven hoofs and a head peaked by a tangle of horns. If only the film hadn't exhausted my ability to understand what the point of it was by then. The gore is ultra low-key, the nudity and sexual content more suggested and non male gaze oriented than usual, and the hero was difficult to care about. The only real sparks in the film that registered in my brain were scenes where "Resevoir Dogs'" Lawrence Tierney gets to chew the scenery as a loud mouth clam-headed police captain between various killings, none of which inspired much dread, alarm or interest to be memorable.The HIGHLANDER comparisons come because the bulk of the film is set in New York City and involves large, open-spaced townhouses that are so expensive to rent that the only people who can afford to make use of them are set designers for movies. And the use of medieval weapons like broadswords, battle axes and a good icy glare from beneath hooded eyebrows. Seeing Alexander Gudanov dressed up like a Nordic Thomas Dolby to battle this costume designer's vision of Odin didn't provide much of a payoff, and the tail end of the film is filled with so many collapsing townhouse floors that the movie became a sort of ironic commentary on, yes, the 9/11 WTC tower collapse, caused by the weakening of the support girders and the pankcaking floors falling one on top of the other. I didn't see any puffs of dust but am pretty sure that these floors collapsed due to a controlled demolition so 9/11 Truth conspiracy buffs might want to check this film out to help your "research" into proving that Bush blew up the towers. And if all else fails you can post screengrabs of Odin with his eyes all glowing real demonic like and claim that they are non-doctored pictures of Condoleeza Rice. I think the bottom line here is that horror movies in general took a nose dive during the 1990s due to this frenzied rush to not offend anyone, which may explain why the sleazy Euro Horror years of the 1970s have proved to be so popular now on retrospect. RUNESTONE created nothing new, accomplished nothing notable and is probably only remembered by the scattershot few who bothered renting it as a home video release and perhaps yearn for the good old days when you could go out & rent three movies for $5.00 on a weeknight, watch them safe and secure knowing that your life with not be changed by any of them, there will be three more just like it to check out the following night, there will be no reason to ever watch any of them ever again, and your girlfriend won't be put off by gratuitous exploitational nudity or gross icky gore. Heaven forbid!!3/10

OK - I had to throw in my two cents after I read a reviewer professing The Relic to be a BETTER film?! What! Firstly - The Relic sucked. Period. No scares, no thrills, no suspense, totally ridiculous, horrible direction. It was one of the horror movies you go to opening night amongst a packed theater and afterwards everyone just kinds of sighs "man that was anti-climatic". The Relic on the other hand is a good little monster movie, and it's certainly compelling and hold's interest. It had a nice thick atmosphere and a good build - some good scares and laughs. This is a good Saturday night at home w/popcorn, soda, and wine, kind of movie.Check it out!