The Eighteenth Angel (1997) User Reviews

Rather far below par 'horror' flick

[SephiAngel · 4/10 · 10 August 2002]

The Eighteenth Angel is, at best, a very below par 'horror' film. I say this because, it's just not horrific. The storyline is essentially a standard 'evil cultists wish to summon Satan to Earth' type thing, something which has, to be honest, been done many times before. In addition, the cast, even the normally entertaining Cook, do nothing to raise the believeability level of this sad little film. The end result is that you find yourself A) Laughing at the film for it's flaws, and B) Not even giving a damn for the characters, neither of which should be results of watching a 'good' horror film (Check out Ring or Nightmare on Elm St.). So while this film does have many flaws, it's biggest letdown is that it is simply not scary, and what more should you be looking for in a horror film. In short, don't see it unless you're a big Cook fan.

Monastery of Malice

[Vomitron_G · 6/10 · 27 July 2009]

I re-watched THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL some time ago because I was given an ex-rental copy of it. I remember watching it some years ago and thinking that it wasn't too bad, though I couldn't remember why. After revisiting it, I still think it's not too bad. And I still can't really figure out why. Let's see... The story was ambitious. The production values were okay. The film had a decent look and some visceral effects in the make-up department. The acting was good and so was the cinematography. That monastery up the hill looked creepy, just like it should in a horror movie... Ergo, this film ain't too bad.

It's along the lines of films like THE OMEN (1976) and BLESS THE CHILD (2000), but it's more on par with the latter than the first. Given the fact it has less star-power and was filmed on a smaller budget, I do consider THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL and admirable effort. The only thing that really bothered me, were some plot holes I just couldn't wrap my head around. I won't go into it now and I'll steer away from writing a synopsis too. What matters is that I found it to be an okay movie and I've seen worse. Much worse.

The Great Book of Horror Clichés (part 513)

[KuRt-33 · 4/10 · 25 July 2000]

"The House of Yes", "Family Rescue", "She's All That": all decent movies starring Rachael Leigh Cook. That's why Rachael was the only reason I wanted to see "The Eighteenth Angel" (well, that and the fact it was shown just after The X-Files). The short version: not even Rachael (as Lucy) can save this disaster.

Here's the longer version: Some of the acting is so bad it's more frightening than the horror plot (a Satanic church wants the Antichrist back and all they need is a demon clock saying when they should sacrifice 18 angelic children). The worst performance is given by Maximilian Schell: instead of acting like a satanic priest he acts like he's the evil penguin in a children's story. When he recites the satanic verses, you think he's reading the recipe for pork chops. The more the story evolves the more ludicrous it gets. If you know the horror cliches, all you have to do is make a list and wait for it to come. Oh look, spikes: somebody's bound to get killed by them. (check) Oh look, nice horses: they are probably going to kill someone. (check) Let's wait for the cameo of a cemetary. (check) Etc etc. (check) Watch out for painful mistakes: father Simeon is praying to the Devil in a pentagram (check), but apparently the makers of this movie didn't know what a pentagram is. It certainly isn't what they used a movie. (If you don't know what a pentagram looks like: watch Jacob the Liar: in that movie they needed a Jewish star, but they used a pentagram.) Add the final ingredient: referring to and stealing from other movies. Maybe they can get away with referring to Brian de Palma's Obsession (the church scene), but it's hard not to spot they borrowed some ideas from The Exorcist. Once again: bad copying only makes a bad movie worse.

So it's best to skip this movie? Yes, unless you like watching Rachael Leigh Cook. In this movie she is a teenage model, so there's lots of posing and looking nice. But she was much better in the movie list I started this review with, so that's not really an argument. Also, skipping The Eighteenth Angel means you don't have to see the ending of a movie which gets worse every scene. You'll clap your hand when the titles get there: not because the movie was good, but because it's finally over.

Predictable and Unintentionally Funny

[cvancil · 1/10 · 12 August 1999]

I watched this movie on the recommendation of a friend, and was she dead wrong about it! I knew the ending halfway through the film, and from the way they filmed it I'm sure it was supposed to be a surprise. The only redeeming factor was that it was so bad I had a good time ripping on it with my friends. I also enjoyed the portrayal of a Music Professor as the action hero. Totally unbelievable and ridiculous. Don't rent it unless you like watching sub-quality "Omen" ripoffs.

Weak Film

[acustomer · 3/10 · 23 May 2010]

On a standard scale, I give this a 3. On a bad movie scale, maybe a 7 out of 10, however. It is pretty funny to watch at points. Let's put it this way though. Have you ever wondered what it would be like if you mixed Omen, Bless the Child, Godsend, and Bram Stoker's Dracula together? Well, here it is. If the movie is about cloning, the story of the script itself would certainly be Frankenstein. It's a hodgepodge, held only together by the principle characters' abject inability to reason or otherwise engage in active problem solving.

So let's see what's similar to other films in the genre: Omen - Evil children bringing about end of days, random telekinesis, swarms of animals that can kill you despite all reason Rosemary's Baby - Elaborately contrived conspiracy to steal a kid Bless the Child - Stealing a kid to complete a ritual Godsend - Evil clones. Because clones are just somehow EVIL. It just is, don't question it. They don't have souls. Or something. Dracula - Production style and values are similar. Just a very similar feel to it.

Firstly, I want to say I did not like this movie as the logic (or lack of it) made my head want to explode. But there were still some good things: - Main character beats up a cat for no apparent reason - Main character then CRUSHES a mutated-looking rat! - Main character is duped by anyone, in any context - Daughter can't seem to state any dialog unless it's with her father, and in that case she has to just oppose whatever he says. - Main character wanders around lots of places purely to advance the plot, when he should realistically be doing something useful. - Evil magic farmer? Somebody has evil magic omen-like powers, without him otherwise being explained. I assumed he was either an evil farmer or evil welfare recipient. In any case, he doesn't do much except lay about and cause unfortunate accidents.

As you can see, there are some things that can be quite amusing in this movie. If you're willing to watch it in the right way, it's kind of like seeing Inspector Clouseau trying to solve a case. All the guy ever does is bumble about, but somehow he learns everything that is going on. Except what's right in front of his nose.

Of course, there are many things that suck about this movie. These include: - The plot. Ugg. Ugg ugg. I'm willing to put up with a little bit of random senseless rituals in a horror movie of this caliber, but these were ridiculous. - The dialog. Serviceable, but that's all. The father-daughter interactions are pretty funny though, as they sometimes seem to be thinking "Okay, let's just get through this scene and move on now." Also, the evil character just seems to blurt out random things constantly (and amusingly). Fine, that didn't suck so much... - The action sequences. If you want the bad guys to look scary, this movie is a good example of what not to do. - The plot. Seriously. The holes in this plot are all that hold it together. If there were less holes, you might start noticing more of them. Instead, you feel like you're lulled into a dreamlike state of shutting down rational thought. i.e. "Sure, continue inspecting these useless materials while your daughter is missing. Makes about as much sense as how you got here in the first place."

am i the only one

[sundiva · 4/10 · 25 April 2002]

who thinks that this movie was completely lame? the only reason i watched the whole movie was because i expected a good ending at least. but even the ending is just so crappy and lame that i can't help thinking that i wasted my time on this boring movie. watch it if you are a raechel leigh cook fan, but even her performance didn't move me at all. rating - 4 out of 10 stars.

Look what the cat dragged in ...

[walneto · 9 December 2003]

... a horrible mutated rat! LOL

Okay, it's not tooooo bad. Not, toooo bad. Nobody ever said raising a teenage daughter would be easy.

Decent satanic horror!

[HumanoidOfFlesh · 7/10 · 3 November 2002]

"The Eighteenth Angel" is a passable horror film-I really wanted to like it.Of course it's horror,and being a fan,I want to like most horror films.Anyway "The Eighteenth Angel" is a well-made,albeit a bit predictable,horror movie that will keep you entertained from the beginning to the end.The acting is pretty good(Rachael Leigh Cook is definitely very talented and beautiful actress),and there are some gruesome scenes.Director William Bindley does know how to compose effective scenes,but "The Eighteenth Angel" becomes boring at times.Still I'd recommend this one to serious horror fans.7 out of 10.

Tick, tock...stupid clock.

[jannagal · 4/10 · 23 October 2004]

The countdown is on...the devil is coming, the devil is coming. And, it wants some beauty, so let's kidnap some beautiful girls. From the phony somber stridency of the narrator's opening monologue, to the stupid clock that gives the countdown, this movie has the most implausible of themes. On first viewing, the movie was rated a 5, for some interesting camera work, and movie tone. But several months and several 100 movies later, a second viewing(why I wasted my time I don't know) warrants a lower rating. New rating: 4 As an aside, in one scene, the husband asks about his wife's work: It's "Etruscans" she says. "Ah, snails," he says. "No that's crustaceans," she says. "No sorry, that's mollusca," I say.

Rachael Leigh Cook steals the movie.

[sec611 · 7/10 · 11 October 1998]

Rachael Leigh Cook does a tremendous job in this movie, truly making the part come to life and lifting an average movie to another plateau.

She has the face of an angel and has a very impressive presence on the big screen. She has the ability to draw you into a movie like only the great ones can.

A Jumbled Mess

[moonmonday · 1/10 · 16 October 2009]

I wasn't expecting a lot from this film, but I was disappointed even so. From the beginning it can't seem to find what it really wants to do, which is unfortunate because it's a kind of interesting premise...but only 'kind of', which dooms it from the outset when coupled with its lacking script and subpar acting.

Unfortunately the only really interesting things in this film are the things that they tend to crib from other, better films and stories. And although it does have some pretty well-known actors who generally are known to be able to act, this just never quite comes together, which makes it seem like a serious problem with direction. For example, Christopher McDonald's character -- the presumed 'hero' Hugh Stanton -- is played so broadly that he is practically a poster child for the obnoxious American stereotype. And it's not really his fault so much as the fact that he is given so disastrously little to work with.

Similar is every other character; while Rachael Leigh Cook does a rather good job with her Lucy Stanton (a character unfortunately and implausibly called 'Luce' and pronounced 'loose' by her father), she has very little to do but be a victim of her father's obnoxiousness and some sort of bizarre Satanic cult that is only given a raison d'etre in the last twenty minutes. Maximilian Schell's rather good acting is wasted in his predictable yet nonsensical role. The rest of the cast do decent enough jobs but are given pathetically little real role in anything happening and are often disposed of in comically ridiculous ways.

The story is just not engaging or tense, and there isn't really a moment where it's anything but boring. This is a serious shame because the premise could have been very suspenseful, but it wasn't even remotely realised. Although most of the effects are somewhere significantly less than special, the monstrous 'blanks' were extremely striking but unfortunately went completely wasted. Similarly wasted was so much potential with the rest of the film, where often things set up to happen ended up fizzling before they got there.

The music varies between zany and irritating, which is noteworthy since Hugh is a music teacher. Some of the moments that were supposed to have been scary or striking simply sound like someone hit the Drama Button, eliciting laughter instead of a scream or a jump.

Overall this film is so inane that, at times, it is blatantly offensive to its viewer. It's not because of any religious undertones (although those are botched too), but instead because of the extremely regrettable fact that this script was not anywhere near as engaging as it should have been. It meanders, teases, and seems to forget itself within mere lines of self-contradiction. The acting is uneven, even for the several experienced actors involved, and all in all it is a wasted opportunity that ends up being similarly a complete waste of time.

It's a pity. With a decent cast and a decent premise, sometimes even a bad script or lacking direction can be overcome. Not so in this case.

A beautiful, dark fairy tale

[BrandtSponseller · 10/10 · 23 March 2005]

At the same time that Norah Stanton (Wendy Crewson) is researching an esoteric Etruscan religious order, the order is secretly a Satan-worshipping cult preparing for the return of their exalted one. A mystical clock is calibrated to Satan's coming. He requires eighteen potential "angels" to choose among for his adopted earthly form. Norah and her family become mixed up in the nefarious plot. Especially important is her extremely attractive, wannabe-model daughter, Lucy (Rachael Leigh Cook). After Norah's apparent suicide, the order and its affiliates conspire to bring Lucy and her father to Italy, where it's a literal race against the clock for Lucy's life.

Well, this certainly isn't the first film for which I'm way off of the mainstream public opinion as reflected on the Internet Movie Database, and it certainly will not be the last. Maybe it's that I tend to be a sucker for "Satanic/Catholic voodoo" horror films (with the exception of believing that The Exorcist (1973) is severely overrated--there goes that "contrary to mainstream opinion" tendency again), but I loved The Eighteenth Angel. I really have a hard time comprehending the negative reviews this film has received.

A number of people have complained about some minutia or another in The Eighteenth Angel being implausible. For example, Lucy smuggles her pet cat on the plane to Italy. I agree that it would be difficult to do this in real life, but the film is fiction, not a claim about how the real world is, and HELLO??!—if you're worried about real-world plausibility, if you're not going to like a film because of a lack of real-world believability, then why the heck would you be watching a film about Satan?! Religious mythology is about as implausible as we can get. Horror in general doesn't tend to be predicated on the real world. Hopefully, you do not believe that there are really such things as vampires, the Frankenstein Monster, Freddie Krueger, or forces that will possess you so that you have to chop off your hand and turn your appendage into an extended chainsaw instead. You're not watching this film with an understanding that you're going to see documentary-like material unless you have mental problems.

The question is whether The Eighteenth Angel succeeds as a kind of dark fairy tale--that's essentially what the horror genre is, with the exception of psycho/serial killer films (and those count as horror because they're "monsters"; they just happen to be real life monsters). As a dark fairy tale, this film kicks butt.

The Eighteenth Angel has some stylistic resemblance to The Omen (1976), which shouldn't be surprising because David Seltzer, the scripter, also wrote that earlier staple of the genre. Part of The Eighteenth Angel's success rests on the fact that almost everyone except the Stantons seems suspicious--they're all candidates for involvement with the satanic cult. Seltzer smartly avoids either directly confirming or denying conscious involvement from most parties, leaving the viewer to come to their own conclusions. Even Norah may have been involved in the "plot", or may have ended up involved after meeting with Father Simeon (Maximilian Schell). We're never shown exactly what led to her suicide, except that we can see it was either voluntary or caused by some supernatural force.

William Bindley's direction is fantastic. The Eighteenth Angel is worth viewing for its cinematography (by Thomas E. Ackerman) alone. Bindley contrasts a nice range of superbly constructed sets and practical locations with expansive, impressive landscape and external shots. He also routinely incorporates a number of extended cinematographic techniques, such as different film stocks and a wide range of approaches to lighting and exposures--from "washed out", or "whited out", brightly lit and generously apertured snippets to shots with dark, chiaroscuro-like shadows and silhouettes. The clock, counting down to Satan's earthly manifestation, makes regular appearances, and while this isn't an unprecedented device for enhancing suspense, the construction of the clock face is intriguing and it's just as interestingly shot and edited as the rest of the film.

The performances are great. Cook is more than convincing, especially once she enters Alice in Wonderland territory as her dreams begin to come true. Christopher McDonald, as her dad, Hugh, is so frumpishly fussy that you want to slap him—that overbearing, overprotective personality is exactly what the character calls for. I also loved Schell as the creepy two-faced priest.

As a Satanic/Catholic voodoo film, the horror emphasis isn't on gore or action so much as odd, often subtle events that are unnerving. The Eighteenth Angel is full of those. Still, there are some fairly visceral makeup effects, which are extremely well done and are worked into the plot with just the right amount of psycho-like depravity and bizarre ambiguity. The climax of the film also has somewhat of a "gothic action" feel, and there's a beautifully nihilistic denouement that should boost any horror fan's rating a point or two.

If you're looking for plausibility, you're in the wrong business. But if you're looking for a marvelously dark fairy tale told with a lot of style, you've come to the right place. This film deserves much more recognition than it has received to date.

A somewhat solid piece of Supernatural Occult Fiction

[SotDX · 7/10 · 1 November 1998]

If you're looking for an Occult Lucifer-rising sort of film, this is a definite must-see. Omen was good for its time, but seems a little dated. This is not a simple re-do though on an old plot. There are interesting connections made between Science and Faith, and the ending was well done if a little predictable.

The only negative features were the father's role was a little bit wooden (but acceptable), and explanations were a little underdone for exactly how all the supernatural puzzle pieces fit together.

I'd recommend it if you're into movies like The Prophecy (one but not two), the Omen series (I-III), Rosemary's Baby, and other such apocalyptic fiction.

Awful execution ruins this religious would-be horror

[Leofwine_draca · 2/10 · 7 July 2016]

This is a boring, time-wasting horror film, in which an interesting story is destroyed by poor direction, a lack of pacing, and a lack of actual horror ingredients. Instead, the film focuses on human characters and their relationships. Frankly, if I wanted to watch trash like this, I'd watch a soap instead. After an hour in which nothing much particularly happens, the pace does pick up a bit and threatens to become exciting, only to lapse once again into a boring ending which looks like it has been severely cut short - by a lack of budget, perhaps?

The acting is pretty bad from a bland cast; only the leading man, Christopher McDonald, displays much talent and even he is rather boring. One reviewer calls Rachael Leigh Cook's performance tremendous, but it's more like atrocious in my opinion. I don't like Cook and every time she appears, the film seems to go even slower as the cameraman concentrates on her blank face. Maximilian Schell is ineffectual as the chief bad guy, and while I think of it, Christopher Lee would have been perfect in the role (after all, he played a similar one in CITY OF THE DEAD). As for Stanley Tucci, his small part is pointless.

I did find the actual story, which mixes in Satanism, Christianity and genetics, to be an interesting one which should and could have been developed further. As it is, it's just an excuse to show some ugly old faces in a bid to shock the audience. Images of a Satanic clock keep recurring throughout the film, which is extremely irritating. Although it's shot well, and the authentic Italian location work is nice, each scene is marred by a lack of real action and the dragging pacing. The script is confusing, the climax non-existent.

The only thing to compensate for these major flaws would be some meaty gore scenes to enjoy, but with only a couple of brief deaths (by cat and by impalement), we don't even get those, which is a real cheat. THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL's place in history stands as a minor precursor to the endless religious horrors that the Millennium stirred up (END OF DAYS, BLESS THE CHILD, etc.), and it fails totally as a horror movie.

fantastic work of art

[Cal Hawks · 7 April 2002]

I first saw this movie a couple of years ago. I liked walking around blockbuster and renting movies that had cool boxes. That's not always the best way to do it, but in this case, it was. The Eighteenth Angel is one of the best movies I've ever seen. The plot turns are exquisite, and i just loved it when I discovered the meaning of the title. I don't want to give away to much but I highly recommend this movie to anyone who has not seen it.

Holy Sh*t

[Theo Robertson · 3/10 · 8 January 2003]

****** POSSIBLE SPOILERS ******

The one thing I did like about the mediocre FINAL CONFLICT was the subplot of the killer monk hit team . THE EIGHTEENTH ANGEL tricked me into believing I was going to be watching a similar type of film that revolves around a gang of killer monks bumping off bimbos but that doesn`t happen . Still not to worry because this film is so awful it`s nearly good . Highlights that caused me to laugh out loud were :

Lucy`s funeral speech whilst holding her cat

The man eating cats on the rampage

The reaction on the actors faces during every melodramatic moment , and boy are there more than a few of those

The line about scientists " Genetically making people " ! I was under the impression that all people were genetically made . One half of you contains your mother`s genes and the other half contain`s your father`s genes . If you`re reading this and you`re black but your parents are both white then I`m sorry to tell you this but they are not your parents.

Oh and that scene where Lucy turns into a slo mo pouting model when the man starts taking her photograph !

Actually that`s the one seriously bad point about the film - It`s kind of sleazy . Rachael Leigh Cook in my eyes doesn`t look a day over 14 so when Lucy starts discussing modeling in her underwear , or keeps giving a sultry look or that horse riding sequence I couldn`t help but give an audible " YUCK "

already forgot it

[quetzal77 · 1/10 · 8 May 2003]

the only thing I still remember of the movie is the stupid pentagram that looks like a Christmas decoration(somebody already wrote about it, I know). Ah, the good accent of foreign guys when speaking Italian: Hopkins was ridiculous when reciting in Latin-Italian in Hannibal. Maybe that was the only aspect they concentrated on while doing this movie and still I don't understand this etruscan book idea where it came from. For what I remember the etruscan civilization was many years before Rome itself was founded and was conquered by Romans before the coming of Christ. So why this weird link. If there's some good history teacher, please help me solve the question. At the moment I left all of my elementary school books in Italy

A Film That Fails On A Number Of Levels.

[meddlecore · 3/10 · 19 July 2013]

"The Eighteenth Angel" is a mediocre film that does a poor job of telling the story about the meaning behind a quote from the "Etruscan Book of the Dead". Something about when Satan comes back he'll walk as beauty.

The plot is based around a secret society of Etruscan Priests who have chosen the side of Satan over that of God- they think Christianity really sucks- and as such, plan to enact the necessary steps to fulfill the aforementioned prophecy- to bring Satan back in a beautiful (as opposed to beastial) form.

To do this they need to get 18 good looking, innocent children, kill them, and cut off their faces...in an apparent process whose reasons go largely unexplained.

Anyways, it stars a sexy as hell 19 year old Rachael Leigh Cook, who plays a young model that is being lured in by the cult- as they recognize her as "the eighteenth angel" needed to complete the necessary required steps in order to bring back Satan...or something like that. First they kill her mom (well kinda...I think...no explanation is given), then somehow get her to come to Italy with her dad, before having some grimy ginos from the cult seduce her via her fat ass cat (which she unbelievably smuggled to Italy).

The cult seems to capture her by exploiting some sort of evil divine intervention, and it is up to her dad to stop them before it's too late. Before he has lost his daughter forever to the cult, like he did his wife.

The whole story is just poorly told. There is no plot development whatsoever and it just kind of ends without tying up multiple strands of the storyline. If it wasn't for the Goddess-like sexual allure of a young Rachael Leigh Cook, and the cinematography on a few nice establishing shots, then this film wouldn't be worth watching at all. 3 out of 10.

It wasn't bad but....

[Aias-3 · 6/10 · 31 July 1999]

The premise was really interesting, and it was entertaining. The ending however....it had the almost prerequisite sequel ending that most horror movies have...It was an immense drawback for the film as a whole. For a nights entertainment it was a good deal but the ending, always I come back to the ending....

Rachel Leigh Cook is DEVILISHLY cute!

[Kirk-30 · 6/10 · 23 February 1999]

The movie had me on my toes, but not being much for horror flicks, I gave it a 6/10. After seeing this, it is safe to say Rachael Leigh Cook is devilishly cute in her many ways. The movie is definitly one-of-a-kind. If your looking for a flick that will scare your sweety into your arms, instead of scaring them away with Friday the 13th, I recommend this movie.

If you like the X Files, you will enjoy this

[sorendanni · 9/10 · 3 December 2016]

Despite the many negative reviews here, I enjoyed this film.

The film mixes Catholic themes of good and evil, God and the devil with contemporary scientific developments, particularly cloning. There are some gaps in the plot, but if you can put it aside, you have a very exciting thriller into the game. The setting in Italy contributes to a dark atmosphere. The film is particularly beautiful shot, especially for a TV movie and the acting is sufficient enough to keep it completely believable. More, the characters are interesting, which helps to feel sorrow for some very sad things happening to them.

The overall style of this film released in 1997, is very similar to the style of the Monster of the Week episodes of The X Files. Therefore, I would recommend The Eiteenth Angel especially to fans of the X Files.

9*

Fantastic Genre Fare

[MWFD · 9/10 · 30 January 1999]

I'm quite surprised by the low ratings users have given this movie. I think of all the direct to video genre films of late The Eighteenth Angel is the pick of the crop. Great acting, an original plot, and great surprisingly good visual effects combine for a great intriguing film.

Great movie, recommend to all!

[myownnemesis · 9/10 · 7 August 1999]

I rented this movie on the only reason that Rachael Leigh Cook was in it, and now i wanna buy it! this is a very good movie(how the hell could it get only a 4.9?!?!) Rachael Leigh Cook did a tremendous job. she made her part very believable. the standard movie starts at one point, and the rest of the movie branches off from there, while u know exactly what is going on. but not this movie. this kept me guessing well into it. and the ending was a twist(i won't say right now)

i recommend this movie for anybody who enjoys movies that don't follow the set pattern of hollywood(the guy gets the girl, the good guy always wins, the bad guy dies, all i good at the end) i AM going to go out and buy this movie(not just because Rachael Leigh Cook is in it, although it is a very good reason to)

This film has everything

[mister_t_1982 · 8/10 · 7 January 2003]

This film has everything: murdering mad monks, evil clocks, crucifix murders, car chases, corpse-bothering, maximilian schell and rachel leigh cook as satan! It may be uninentionally funny, but this film is inspired genius and deserves a sequel!

Entertaining if you don't expect too much

[polkablues · 2 May 2001]

Far from a great movie, but at least it's better than "The Ninth Gate" and "End of Days" (the two movies it reminded me most of). Rachel Leigh Cook is stunningly beautiful, and gives a performance that makes some poor writing almost work. Christopher McDonald is surprisingly good even though (perhaps because) he is not playing the comedic jerk character he's played in almost everything else he's been in. Maximillian Schell should have just stayed home; he doesn't bring anything new or even interesting to the film. All in all, it's worth renting (or buying for three dollars, as I was lucky enough to do), even though the ending is one of the most cliched, predictable bits of cinema I've seen in a long time. The menacing glare straight into the camera at the last shot just doesn't seem as clever as it used to be. For that matter, I'm not convinced it ever was clever.